First, a bit of information to pass along. Coach Fitz will be speaking to the Big Ten Media at 1:00 EST, 12:00 CST on Thursday. There are a number of places where this can be streamed, and those will be passed along once a list has been created. No word yet on when NU representative players Dan Persa, Jordan Mabin, and Al Netter will speak.
An additional news note. Fitz appeared on Waddle and Silvy on Tuesday. Part of his interview included pitching a bowl game in Chicago – most likely in Soldier Field or U.S. Cellular. Obviously, in years past, bowl games have avoided cold weather climates. But with the advent of the Pinstripe Bowl in New York City last year, the gates are now open to Chicago. Fitz would be well-served to be a key spokesperson for this project. Most importantly, Fitz said that Dan Persa is ahead of schedule in his recovery. He is throwing every day and is 100% healed. Now, do not confuse healed with recovered. There is a significant amount of strength therapy that goes into the recovery from an achilles injury. This will be the most important thing to keep an eye on when the Cats begin summer practice on August 8. To read Tina’s story on the Fitz interview, click here. Fitz was also interviewed by Skip Myslenski on the eve of Big ten Media days. You can read it here. Since most of the topics will surely be covered by the Media Day presser tomorrow, EVR will wait and analyze all Fitz topics on Friday.
On to recruiting – it can be very difficult for a fan of a school like Northwestern to fully evaluate NU’s recruiting class in any given year. Observers are constantly perplexed with how Northwestern finishes 10th in the Big Ten, annually, in the Rivals.com recruiting rankings – yet manages to finish in the middle of the Big Ten standings. Rivals will attribute this to coaching and player development, as it did in a recent study. But the team rankings have an inherent flaw in the system which continues to push up the bigger schools (with larger fan bases, who are more likely to subscribe to Rivals’ pay service) and push down the Northwesterns of the world.
A few years ago, EVR read an article on how Rivals comes up with its team rankings. Unfortunately, this cannot be found and reproduced – so EVR is working from memory here. But the team rankings are based on number of commitments, the “star value” of commitments, number of commitments in the National top 100 player rankings, and number of commitments who are ranked at their individual position. Each of these has a fatal flaw which sinks Northwestern.
Number of Commitments – It is easy to see why Northwestern is downgraded here. Most big schools sign a full 25-man recruiting class, while NU generally comes in with anywhere from 17-20 players. A number of factors go into this. The first is the over-signing issue, which made national headlines over the offseason. The Big Ten has long sense banned this practice, which basically allows schools to sign players that they do not have roster spots for. Some of these players never make the team and others are eventually cut. Their academic scholarship remains, but they are basically denied an opportunity to go somewhere else where they could play. The SEC, under considerable pressure, recently banned this practice as well.
Additionally, NU has considerably less juniors leaving for the NFL, drop-outs and transfers than most schools. As a result, there are less scholarship spots to go around. So while the big schools generally use the full 25-man class; NU generally does not.
For example, NU is currently ranked 49th in the nation in recruiting for 2012. As Rivals points out, this is less because of the caliber of NU’s players, and more because of the size of NU’s upcoming senior class (21 players) and that the recruiting class is expected to be larger than normal. So while it may appear on paper that NU has a better class, it may have less to do with talent and much more to do with numbers.
Star Value – As you are probably aware, Rivals rates most high school players with a star rating. Five star players are “Blue-Chip” prospects. This is an elite group – there are only 17 in the 2012 recruiting class. The lowest rating is two-stars. Players who are not evaluated are not given a star rating. Now, there is some suggestion that Rivals will artificially, bump up the star rating of players committed, or interested, in the bigger schools (again, for the reasons stated above). EVR happens to believe that this might be the case, although has no evidence to back this up.
More importantly is the inherent weakness in a system that divides 99% of the athletes rated into one of three categories. Rivals, basically, considers its highest four-star athlete – in 2012 the 18th best player in the country – to only be one step higher than the lowest ranked three-star, probably ranked somewhere around the 700 mark (that's a complete guess). Rivals evaluates a team’s class based on an average star rating, which is basically meaningless to begin with.
Now, to its credit, Rivals has established its own “Rivals Rating” which is a scale of 4.9 to 6.1 (strange the one to thirteen wouldn’t suffice). This is clearly a more accurate way of classifying the talent because a high four-star (a 6.0; the 6.1 rating is reserved for the Blue Chip five-star) is now more differentiated from the low three-star (5.5). More on this rating system later – but nonetheless, Rivals continues to use the star system to determine the rank of teams.
Top 100 Players – This is an inherent compounding problem. There are bonuses given to teams with commitments from the top 100 players, on top of the fact that they are the highest “starred” players to begin with. The better teams get the better players – and now they get bonus points for it. Again, another way to get the bigger schools to the top of the charts.
Ranked at position – There are some issues with this as well, although none of them are really a bias against anyone – it just doesn’t make sense. In a particularly deep year at wide receiver, for instance, the 30th ranked WR is going to be considerably better than the same ranked player in a weaker year. Now, maybe there are enough players that this effect is more theoretical than anything else. But it is still a random factor. Also, Rivals splits rankings for some positions such as “Pro-Style” quarterback and “Dual-Threat” QB. This means that your team’s class ranking could depend, in part, on the type of offense you choose to run.
So what does this all mean? – Basically, looking to see that NU was 11th in the Big Ten and missed the top 50 in the national rankings – doesn’t tell us a whole lot about NU’s class. But what we can do – and what I propose is the best way to evaluate a recruiting class – is to compare NU’s 2011 class to past NU recruiting classes. This way, there is an apples to apples comparison -- and eliminates any bias based on traditional strength of program.
The following chart looks back at NU recruiting classes going back to 2002. Each class will have the average stars, average rivals rating, and NU’s winning percentage in the classes 3rd, 4th, and 5th seasons – when most of the players would see significant action and contribute in leadership roles.
| Year | Avg* | AvgRR | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 | Total | Highest Ranked Player |
| 2002 | 2.286 | N/A | 0.500 | 0.583 | 0.333 | 0.472 | Loren Howard (4-star) |
| 2003 | 2.364 | N/A | 0.583 | 0.333 | 0.500 | 0.472 | Trevor Rees |
| 2004 | 2.154 | 5.223 | 0.333 | 0.500 | 0.692 | 0.514 | C.J. Bacher |
| 2005 | 2.500 | 5.365 | 0.500 | 0.692 | 0.615 | 0.605 | Chris Jeske |
| 2006 | 2.235 | 5.306 | 0.692 | 0.615 | 0.538 | 0.615 | Quentin Davie |
| 2007 | 2.737 | 5.484 | 0.615 | 0.538 | Jordan Mabin | ||
| 2008 | 2.300 | 5.270 | 0.538 | Brian Mulroe | |||
| 2009 | 2.667 | 5.494 | Patrick Ward (4-star) | ||||
| 2010 | 2.941 | 5.571 | Kain Colter | ||||
| 2011 | 2.882 | 5.541 | Christian Jones | ||||
| 2012 | 2.750 | 5.525 | Malin Jones |
A few observations. First, the incoming 2011 class is the second highest rated class in the last 10 years, second only to 2010. And 2012 is shaping up to be just as good. But also, note that 2012, which is currently ranked 49th nationally, does not have as high ratings as 2010 and 2011, which finished much lower. Again, because the class will be bigger.
Also, the lowest ranked class, 2004, gave us the fifth-year seniors who finished 9-4 in 2008. This class included: C.J. Bacher, Ross Lane, Joel Belding and Kevin Mims. So not every class rank tells the story. Same with the 2006 class, which just graduated with the best winning percentage, despite the second-lowest recruiting class. This class included: Stefan Demos, Nate Williams, Sidney Stewart, Marshall Thomas, and Justan Vaughn, along with Sherrick McManis, Corbin Bryant, and Quentin Davie, who are currently on NFL rosters. Not too bad. These two classes are certainly a tick in the column for player development and coaching. But it could also be NU’s ability to find a diamond in the rough – or a bias inherent in the system against players who are not recruited heavily by larger schools.
And also, what is the reason for the relatively better classes recently. Does success indeed breed more success? Whatever the reason, it is clear that NU is bringing in a relatively higher level of athlete into the program. It remains to be seen what the Cats are able to do on the field.
This post was not designed to provide answers. It was designed to inform and intrigue. To the average fan, recruiting just sort of happens, and no one really pays attention. To even the trained fan, recruiting is generally followed for one week per year, and then the players are forgotten. EVR plans to continue to follow recruiting a little closer this year. In doing so, EVR hopes to try to educate its readers about the future of NU football, so that when Christian Jones is an All Big Ten Wideout in 2014, you have a better idea of how he got there.
Tomorrow’s post will look at the 2011 class, with a focus on the players who could see playing time in 2011. EVR will also give an update on the 2012 class.
No comments:
Post a Comment